[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85621-85622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27007]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-XXXX; Docket No. 2023-0001; Sequence No. 8]


Information Collection; Data Collection for a National Evaluation 
of the American Rescue Plan

AGENCY: Office of Evaluation Sciences; Office of Government-wide Policy 
(OGP); General Services Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding a request for a new 
OMB clearance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, OES is 
proposing new data collection activities conducted for the National 
Evaluation of the American Rescue Plan (ARP). The objective of this 
project is to provide a systematic look at the contributions of 
selected ARP-funded programs toward achieving equitable outcomes to 
inform program design and delivery across the Federal Government. The 
project will include in-depth, cross-cutting evaluations and data 
analysis of selected ARP programs, especially those with shared 
outcomes, common approaches, or overlapping recipient communities; and 
targeted, program-specific analyses to fill critical gaps in evidence 
needs.

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 6, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-
XXXX; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the American Rescue 
Plan via http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal 
eRulemaking portal by searching for the OMB Control number 3090-XXXX. 
Select the link ``Comment Now'' that corresponds with ``Information 
Collection 3090-XXXX; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the 
American Rescue Plan''. Follow the instructions on the screen. Please 
include your name, company name (if any), and ``Information Collection 
3090-XXXX; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the American 
Rescue Plan'' on your attached document. If your comment cannot be 
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the points 
of contact in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 
document for alternate instructions.
    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information 
Collection 3090-XXXX; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the 
American Rescue Plan, in all correspondence related to this collection. 
Comments received generally will be posted without change to 
regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential 
information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please 
check regulations.gov, approximately two-to-three days after submission 
to verify posting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Martin, Program Manager, 
(267)455-8556 at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36574446185857425f5958575a185340575a4357425f59587651455718515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91f0e3e1bffff0e5f8fefff0fdbff4e7f0fde4f0e5f8feffd1f6e2f0bff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

    The goal of this study is to look systematically across the 
selected subset of ARP programs, to provide an integrated account of 
whether, how, and to what extent their implementation served to achieve 
their intended outcomes, particularly with respect to advancing equity. 
More specifically, the study aims to learn how lessons from examination 
of ARP programs and interventions with shared outcomes, common 
approaches, or overlapping recipient communities may inform equitable 
program design and delivery across the Federal Government. The study 
aims to address these overarching evaluation questions:
    <bullet> To what extent did ARP investments and policy 
interventions advance equitable outcomes for those they were designed 
to serve?
    <bullet> What strategies contributed to the successes, and where 
are different strategies needed?
    <bullet> Where multiple ARP programs aim to reach similar outcomes, 
especially among a shared population:
    [cir] To what extent is there coordination across programs in their 
administration, customer experience strategies, or performance or 
outcome measurement practices?
    [cir] To what extent are there collective impacts that could be 
attributed to more than one program? What kinds of impacts, if any, are 
observed?
    [cir] What kinds of secondary effects are observed that may not be 
captured in targeted outcome measures?
    The list of 32 programs covered in the May 2022 White House report 
``Advancing Equity through the American Rescue Plan'' provided the 
scope of programs included in the National Evaluation. A partnership

[[Page 85622]]

between the Office of Management and Budget Evidence Team and GSA's 
Office of Evaluation Sciences, this study is also guided by leadership 
from the White House ARP Implementation Team, who participate on the 
Steering Committee, as well as a team of agency experts across the 
Federal Government.
    To build evidence in support of the study goals, this project 
includes a series of up to five in-depth, cross-cutting evaluations of 
selected ARP programs or recipient communities of multiple ARP program 
investments with shared outcomes, common approaches, or overlapping 
recipient groups. These evaluations will be selected based on program, 
population, place, community, or a combination of these factors. A 
mixed-methods approach is anticipated in order to ensure that 
appropriate attention is paid to context and that data collection and 
analysis methods reflect the complexity of program implementation and 
address the specific evaluation questions identified through the 
ongoing planning and consultation process.
    The ARP National Evaluation will use a multiple-phased approach for 
this proposed information collection activity. In Phase 1 (current 
request) the research team seeks approval to carry out consultations 
with the relevant state and local agencies, community-based 
organizations, and program participants, including the formal 
recruitment process to establish community advisory boards for each of 
the planned in-depth evaluations.
    Under subsequent phases of the request, the project will update the 
information collection request for the instruments tailored to each in-
depth evaluation, to reflect the specific evaluation design, 
information collection methods and instruments, and associated burden. 
The proposed information collection activities cover mixed-method 
approaches to implement primarily outcome and process evaluations. Data 
collection activities for these studies may include: (1) interviews 
with program administrators and staff; (2) focus groups, (3) short 
surveys of program participants and/or eligible non-participants, and 
(4) data requests.
    Respondents: State and local program administrators, program staff, 
community-based program partners, and individuals who participate or 
are eligible to participate in the relevant ARP programs.

B. Annual Burden Estimates

    The estimates below are based on the assumption that for each of up 
to 5 evaluations, we will consult with approximately 15 state and/or 
local program administrators or representatives from community-based 
organizations, recruit up to 9 participants for the community advisory 
boards (CAB) for each study, and initiate CAB meetings.
    The anticipated information collections to be undertaken in Phase 
2, for each of up to 5 evaluations, are expected to vary in their 
approaches to data collection and sample size. The estimate provided 
here anticipates that each of the evaluations may collect and analyze 
information from: approximately 5 program administrator interviews, 2 
90-minute focus groups with program recipients (8 participants each), 1 
brief survey of program recipients (sample of about 500 each), and 2 
requests for extant administrative or implementation datasets. The 
subsequent information collection requests will describe the specific 
study design and associated burden for each evaluation.
    Total respondents: 2,815.
    Total annual responses: 18.
    Average burden hours per response: 1.43.
    Total Burden Hours: 1,385.

C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this 
collection of information is necessary, whether it will have practical 
utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection 
of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and 
methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, 
through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.

Lesley Briante,
Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-27007 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-TZ-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>